#11
|
|||
|
|||
There are definitely bikes out there that will support your weight.
The main problem may be comfort, so a recumbant may be your best bet for now. I want to say that whenever I see a heavy person cycling, hiking, walking or jogging, my first thought is: "Awright!" I've got several severely obese relatives and I know how much effort it takes for them to start exercising. Not only is it challenging to make lifestyle changes, there is also a social stigma for heavy people who exercise in public. It takes courage to make that commitment, and I salute anyone who accepts the challenge. -JR |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Dave B. wrote:
I am somewhat afraid of posting this because I just read 30 minutes of posts that tore people to shreads regarding their size but hopefully 1 person that knows something will respond. I started this year at about 500 pounds and right now am about to break the 400 pound mark. I would like to get a bike but am not sure exactly what I should look for. I thought that a recumbent really looked like the bike for me (except for the price) and then I have recently seen these comfort bikes. Are there bikes that out there that can safely support my weight? and if so, why type of frame etc should I be looking at? Thanks in advance, Dave Dave, Go to the local bike shop (LBS) and talk with them. It is not unlike any other major purchase, it may be more important to like and feel comfortable with the folks you buy from, then the bike particulars. Especially when you are a beginner. Just make sure they know your interest and level and you feel good about thier ability to provide service after your purchase. Everyone here can provide all sorts of advice, but when you have a problem, concern or issue, your friendly neighborhood LBS can actually do something about it. Oh, and congrats on your weight loss efforts, and your continued effort. I have more respect for folks like you on bikes than I do folks like me, because I know it is easier for me all the way around (6'2", 175lbs). -- Craig Brossman, Durango Colorado "Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation." Edward R. Murrow |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Hiya Will:
"Worksman" is one company that makes "industrial" trikes and bikes, including trike folders (!). One "Older American" I see on the bus came across a folder trike from them that she uses when she "walks" the dog. Bonus -- good sized basket in back. Just the thing for hauling groceries, especially those healthy but bulky leafy green vegetables, the cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, brussels sprouts), fresh crimini mushrooms, red peppers. Great, look what I've done to myself -- dinner tonight will just have to feature steamed vegetables. I recall their URL was http://wwww.worksman.com but I could have gotten that wrong. I DO recall it loads slowly. Hope this helps the Original Poster! Robert Leone Will wrote: There is also an interesting category of "work" bikes that are used for hauling significant loads around warehouses, delivering goods in cities, etc... I do not remember the names but I would guess a google on "delivery bicycles" would get somewhere. I know there is a company in NYC that makes a number of super heavy service bikes. They would be cheaper than a full blown expedition cycle. They also tend to have tricycle options, given the loads they are spec'd for. Will |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
maxo wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 08:13:02 -0700, Dave B. wrote: Are there bikes that out there that can safely support my weight? and if so, why type of frame etc should I be looking at? Thanks in advance, Dave The wheels may be the biggest problem, so you may want to look into getting the wheels on any bike you get replaced immediately with "tandem" wheels having more spokes. If cost were no object I'd suggest a Co-motion Americano, i.e. http://www.co-motion.com/Amerc.html which comes with tandem wheels, up to 48 spokes, with tandem-spaced rear dropouts, and which has low-enough gearing to allow considerable weight to be hauled up decent hills. While it still might be useful to pay attention to the selection of cockpit items like the seatpost and handlebar, the frame and wheels are built from stuff which carries this much weight all the time. There are, however, some downsides to starting with an expensive bike like this. A new rider won't necessarily be sure that he'll actually continue riding long enough to justify the cost. Also, it isn't clear to me that a bike chosen to fit a 400 lb person well would necessarily be a perfect fit for the same person at, say, 250 lb (I really have no idea), and it would be a shame to spend so much on something that might not be ideal for the long term. Because of this I think I agree with the suggestion of starting with a solid-fork mountain bike and saving a bigger investment until it is clearer that spending the money would be worth it. Dennis Ferguson |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
SlowRider wrote:
There are definitely bikes out there that will support your weight. The main problem may be comfort, so a recumbant may be your best bet for now. I want to say that whenever I see a heavy person cycling, hiking, walking or jogging, my first thought is: "Awright!" I've got several severely obese relatives and I know how much effort it takes for them to start exercising. Not only is it challenging to make lifestyle changes, there is also a social stigma for heavy people who exercise in public. It takes courage to make that commitment, and I salute anyone who accepts the challenge. Weight is a simple formula, Energy-In - Energy Out = Weight-Change. If you take in 1000 calories (Energy-In), and sit in front of the idiot box for four hours, burning 100 Calories, then Weight Change = 900 Calories, so you gain weight. If you take in the same 1000 Calories, and go ride your bike up big-ass hill, burning off 1900 Calories, then Weight-Change = -900 so you lose weight. For a very overweight person, they need to talk to a doctor, get a good physical checkup first, then work with a nutritionist to come up with a diet they can handle, this is because diet is a learned process, so they need to be taught how to do it differently, to reduce Energy-In. Energy-Out is Excercise, some excerises, like jogging for example is boring, hurts the knees, therefore most people who start a jogging program, often quit fairly quickly. Best type of bike for ten ton Tonita, probably a 'bent trike, 'bents have more suitable seating for wider bottoms, and a trike is going to be more stable at the lower speeds, needed by someone who is in granny gear most of the time. Excercise is Energy-Out. One thing that skinny winnies don't realise is that obesity is a disability, a disability that can be overcome, but a disability none the less. The first step, like any other habitual problem, is admitting that there is a problem, second is wanting to do something about it. W |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"The Wogster" wrote in message ... snip Weight is a simple formula, Energy-In - Energy Out = Weight-Change. If you take in 1000 calories (Energy-In), and sit in front of the idiot box for four hours, burning 100 Calories, then Weight Change = 900 Calories, so you gain weight. If you take in the same 1000 Calories, and go ride your bike up big-ass hill, burning off 1900 Calories, then Weight-Change = -900 so you lose weight. snip Agreed with all you were saying. The *encouraging* thing is the changes that need to be made to lose weight are comparatively small! Cutting 500 calories a day from most people's diet isn't that difficult. A can of pop is 100+ calories, a chocolate bar is 250ish... there's 350 right there! A few slices of cheese puts that over 500. A few *small* changes, turning them into habits and you end up with a healthy lifestyle. I'm speaking from personal experience here. Last month I was 260lbs. I'm now down to 248lbs. YAY! 8D When I look at the changes I've made, they aren't HUGE...they're just consistent. One more change I made: no calories consumed within about 3 hours of bed time. (unless I have a reason to...maybe an energy drink if I've gone biking) I've been drinking water before bed to make me feel full - if I had any rumblings. Chris |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
C.J.Patten wrote:
"The Wogster" wrote in message ... snip Weight is a simple formula, Energy-In - Energy Out = Weight-Change. If you take in 1000 calories (Energy-In), and sit in front of the idiot box for four hours, burning 100 Calories, then Weight Change = 900 Calories, so you gain weight. If you take in the same 1000 Calories, and go ride your bike up big-ass hill, burning off 1900 Calories, then Weight-Change = -900 so you lose weight. snip Agreed with all you were saying. The *encouraging* thing is the changes that need to be made to lose weight are comparatively small! Cutting 500 calories a day from most people's diet isn't that difficult. A can of pop is 100+ calories, a chocolate bar is 250ish... there's 350 right there! A few slices of cheese puts that over 500. A few *small* changes, turning them into habits and you end up with a healthy lifestyle. I'm speaking from personal experience here. Last month I was 260lbs. I'm now down to 248lbs. YAY! 8D Congrats. A good thing to do is target, maybe that double century ride the local bike club does every summer, target it for next year. That means you need to be start training, now. Cycling at 10MPH burns around 26 calories per mile (150lb rider), the heavier the rider, the more calories burned. The faster the rider, the more calories burned. Each pound is 3500 Calories, so you need to find the balance point, at what point does Energy-In equal Energy-Out, it's different for everyone. Then intentionally balance to the negative, so that energy-in is less then energy-out. That could mean that you can have the burger with the works, and no desert, or have the salad with no dressing, and the pie. Or have the burger and the pie, followed by a 100 mile bike ride, all up hill...... At some point, you decide to have the salad with no dressing, skip the pie, then do part of the bike ride anyway. W |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"The Wogster" wrote in message ... snip Then intentionally balance to the negative, so that energy-in is less then energy-out. That could mean that you can have the burger with the works, and no desert, or have the salad with no dressing, and the pie. Or have the burger and the pie, followed by a 100 mile bike ride, all up hill...... At some point, you decide to have the salad with no dressing, skip the pie, then do part of the bike ride anyway. *chuckles* A slice of pie or a glob of Caeser dressing never seems to be as appealing when you think about the 25miles it's going to take to burn it off. A big paradigm shift for me when I'm "behaving healthy" is that food ceases to be "entertainment" and is entirely *fuel.* Who want to put dirty fuel in their car - or take a plane flight where the jet-fuel looks like tar? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
C.J.Patten wrote:
"The Wogster" wrote in message ... snip Then intentionally balance to the negative, so that energy-in is less then energy-out. That could mean that you can have the burger with the works, and no desert, or have the salad with no dressing, and the pie. Or have the burger and the pie, followed by a 100 mile bike ride, all up hill...... At some point, you decide to have the salad with no dressing, skip the pie, then do part of the bike ride anyway. *chuckles* A slice of pie or a glob of Caeser dressing never seems to be as appealing when you think about the 25miles it's going to take to burn it off. Very true.... That's also a good way of thinking of it, forget the prices at the company cafeteria, think instead of that sub sandwhich is 25 miles, hmm that pie is 40 miles, gee, when will I have time to do 65 miles in the next 24 hours...... A big paradigm shift for me when I'm "behaving healthy" is that food ceases to be "entertainment" and is entirely *fuel.* Who want to put dirty fuel in their car - or take a plane flight where the jet-fuel looks like tar? That's also true, the idea is to behave healthy as the norm, not as something you do once in a while, when your pants don't fit. Most people who get into an excersize program to lose weight, actually don't, muscle weighs more then fat, which is why you need to also change eating habits. W |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On 2005-06-24, The Wogster wrote:
C.J.Patten wrote: "The Wogster" wrote in message ... snip Weight is a simple formula, Energy-In - Energy Out = Weight-Change. If you take in 1000 calories (Energy-In), and sit in front of the idiot box for four hours, burning 100 Calories, then Weight Change = 900 Calories, so you gain weight. If you take in the same 1000 Calories, and go ride your bike up big-ass hill, burning off 1900 Calories, then Weight-Change = -900 so you lose weight. snip Agreed with all you were saying. The *encouraging* thing is the changes that need to be made to lose weight are comparatively small! Cutting 500 calories a day from most people's diet isn't that difficult. A can of pop is 100+ calories, a chocolate bar is 250ish... there's 350 right there! A few slices of cheese puts that over 500. A few *small* changes, turning them into habits and you end up with a healthy lifestyle. I'm speaking from personal experience here. Last month I was 260lbs. I'm now down to 248lbs. YAY! 8D Congrats. A good thing to do is target, maybe that double century ride the local bike club does every summer, target it for next year. That means you need to be start training, now. Cycling at 10MPH burns around 26 calories per mile (150lb rider), the heavier the rider, the more calories burned. The faster the rider, the more calories burned. Each pound is 3500 Calories, so you need to find the balance point, at what point does Energy-In equal Energy-Out, it's different for everyone. I was wondering when somebody was going to mention that. Back when I had Graves disease, I'd eat 6000+ calories/day and still lose weight whether or not I would exercise. Fortunately, decreased performance helped me in seeking treatment. Even though I'm cured of the Graves, between biking and running I find it hard to keep my weight up. I like the idea of being fit, but not have pencil thin arms and flat chest with huge legs. Crosstraining is the key. For me, the average week of 175 miles biking, 25 miles running, 6hrs, weighlifting, allows me to gorge like a pig on whatever I feel like having. Then intentionally balance to the negative, so that energy-in is less then energy-out. That could mean that you can have the burger with the works, and no desert, or have the salad with no dressing, and the pie. Or have the burger and the pie, followed by a 100 mile bike ride, all up hill...... At some point, you decide to have the salad with no dressing, skip the pie, then do part of the bike ride anyway. It's a good idea when the goal is to lose weight, or recovering from injury. The injury thing is scary because once you get used to eating a certain way and then take away the exercise the results could be bad. W |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Autofaq now on faster server | Simon Brooke | UK | 216 | April 1st 05 10:09 AM |
Some questions etc.. | Douglas Harrington | General | 10 | August 17th 04 02:42 AM |
Duct Tape reduces vibration! | Wayne Pein | Techniques | 22 | April 29th 04 11:35 PM |
First road bike: braking? | Alan Hoyle | General | 47 | September 28th 03 11:40 PM |
FAQ | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 27 | September 5th 03 10:58 PM |